During data tracker DefiLlama’s September 22 snapshot, Solana outpaced Ethereum in transaction fees, though Ethereum led in burned fees. This divergence highlights how network activity can enrich validators and applications without directly benefiting passive token holders.
According to the snapshot, Solana recorded approximately $1.1 million in daily transaction fees alongside $117,138 in reported revenue. Meanwhile, Ethereum registered $649,423 in daily fees and $226,298 in revenue.
For both blockchains, DefiLlama’s revenue metric tracks the value of burned tokens, which permanently decreases supply rather than distributing cash to holders.
Solana also claimed the top spot for seven-day and 30-day cumulative fees, while Ethereum maintained a narrow lead in total burns. However, these dollar values do not easily determine which asset has superior tokenomics, as factors like new token issuance, overall market capitalization, and the proportion of validator revenue passed to stakers complicate the picture.
Over a 30-day period, DefiLlama reported Solana’s network fees at $23.6 million compared to Ethereum’s $12 million. Conversely, the 30-day burn figures stood at $2.66 million for Solana and $2.8 million for Ethereum.
| Displayed metric | Solana | Ethereum |
|---|---|---|
| 24-hour chain fees | About $1.10 million | $649,423 |
| 24-hour reported burns | $117,138 | $226,298 |
| 7-day chain fees | $5.93 million | $3.09 million |
| 7-day reported burns | $698,884 | $761,849 |
| 30-day chain fees | $23.58 million | $12.04 million |
| 30-day reported burns | $2.66 million | $2.80 million |
Because the exact timeframes for these metrics were not specified, and Ethereum’s separate revenue table indicated a slightly different daily figure of $229,846, these comparisons are subject to data synchronization variances.
The longer-term data also puts the daily figures into perspective. Ethereum’s 30-day cumulative burn was only marginally higher than Solana’s, despite a much wider gap in the daily snapshot. Ultimately, leading in aggregate weekly or monthly volume does not guarantee a network was ahead on every individual day.
How fees reach validators, stakers and apps
Under Solana’s network rules, the baseline transaction fee is set at 5,000 lamports per signature. This base amount is split equally: half is burned, and the other half is awarded to the block-producing validator. Validators also collect 100% of priority fees, which users pay to fast-track their transactions.
This distribution model highlights the importance of fee composition. A surge in priority fees raises validator earnings without increasing the burn rate, allowing high overall transaction fees to exist alongside a relatively low burn total.
Ethereum, by contrast, burns execution base fees while directing priority tips to validators. Additionally, DefiLlama’s data-gathering code includes blob fees in both its total fee and reported burn metrics. Consequently, similar levels of user spending can impact token supply differently depending on the specific transaction types.
The tracking programs (or adapters) use estimates for some of these burn figures. For example, DefiLlama’s Solana adapter approximates base fees by multiplying the total transaction count by 5,000 lamports, even though the protocol actually charges on a per-signature basis.
Ethereum’s adapter estimates the execution base fee using the minimum effective gas price of each block, while obtaining blob fees separately via Dune. Because of these approximations, neither calculation should be viewed as a fully audited record of destroyed tokens.
Furthermore, burning only lowers the circulating supply relative to what it would have been; it does not deposit funds into a holder’s wallet, prove that overall supply is actively shrinking, or guarantee price appreciation. These dynamics are separate from the total cost users pay to transact.
Stakers do not automatically receive a validator’s entire earnings. Solana’s official documentation notes that inflationary rewards are distributed to validators and delegated stake accounts, with validator commissions directly reducing the net yield received by delegators.
Staking yields also vary based on total network stake and validator uptime. Crucially, these newly minted inflationary rewards are separate from transaction fees.
On July 2, 2025, Solana staking infrastructure provider Jito rolled out a live upgrade enabling validators to share priority fees with their stakers. However, the final distribution is determined by individual validator settings and commissions, meaning this mechanism does not guarantee a uniform return for all SOL stakers.
For passive investors, there is a clear distinction between simply holding the asset and participating in a specific reward structure.
A non-staking holder gains nothing from rising network fees, while active stakers must carefully evaluate which rewards are included and what fees are deducted before assuming a quoted yield represents actual fee revenue.
Decentralized applications represent another hub of economic activity. The September 22 snapshot recorded $7.7 million in 24-hour app revenue on Solana compared to $1.9 million on Ethereum. Total application fees reached $18.2 million and $8.5 million, respectively.
DefiLlama’s data framework separates these application-level metrics from network gas fees. It also defines chain revenue (REV) as network fees plus maximum extractable value (MEV) tips. While REV represents a broader measure of transaction activity, combining it directly with chain fees would result in double-counting.
Valuation and issuance change the investment question
Ethereum’s higher dollar-denominated burn must be weighed against its significantly larger market valuation. The September 22 snapshot listed market capitalizations of $335 billion for ETH and $69 billion for SOL. This means that nearly identical 30-day burn totals represent a much higher percentage of Solana’s market cap.
Calculating a holder’s actual yield requires a more complex analysis. Comparing a period’s estimated burn to a static valuation does not account for new tokens minted during that same timeframe. A high gross burn rate relative to market cap can easily be offset by aggressive token issuance.
This dynamic is highly explicit in Ethereum’s supply structure, where net supply changes are determined by subtracting burned tokens from newly issued ones. The Ethereum Merge explainer’s example of roughly 1,700 ETH issued daily assumes 14 million ETH are staked, meaning it cannot be used as an accurate representation of September 2026 issuance.
Without aligned, period-specific issuance data for both blockchains, these fee comparisons cannot prove which network has a net supply advantage or offers a better investment return.
For instance, Solana’s approved SGP-0002 proposal aims to double its annual disinflation rate from 15% to 30%, but this change is contingent on the acceptance and activation of SIMD-0550. Its actual economic impact remains tied to its eventual deployment.
For investors comparing SOL and ETH, the key missing piece of evidence is a synchronized, side-by-side breakdown of tokens issued versus burned, alongside the actual fee yields distributed after validator commissions.
While the September snapshot highlights stronger fee generation on Solana and a larger dollar-value burn on Ethereum, translating these points into investment returns requires a clear understanding of how much value reaches holders, how much new supply is created, and the entry valuation paid by the buyer.
